One way to get round the current impasse in the States is to persuade the AAAS or a similar body to make an announcement at the next Annual Conference. Some thing along the lines of “Having passed all the required scientific analyses for over a Century, we hereby declare that evolution is no longer a theory, but has the status of a law.

As a corollary to this, as it is now a Law, no alternate theories need be taught, and such theories should be rigorously excluded from text books at any level. “

--------------If I fly the coop some timeAnd take nothing but a gripWith the few good books that really countIt's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacketThe girl with the pearl-driller's hands

I think you're on to something. Lately, I've been pondering a fudge to the scientific nomenclature, differentiating its terminology from the vernacular terms. Which is snob for saying, let's change it from "theory" to something else that people won't mistake for "hunch".

All over the media, I see the term misused. Even some scientists refer to their ideas as theories when I don't think it meets the criteria. The ID people are clearly capitalizing on this fuzziness. Why give them the option? Why not calibrate the terminology?

Hypothesis: this one can stay. Its sufficiently narrow that it can't be confused with anything else. This applies to one experiment, one piece of data only.

Theory: Demote this term. Use it when you've got a collection of data that you want to explain, but aren't reasonably confident of your explanation. Its somewhat less than what we now call a theory, but more than just a hypothesis. Its a hypothesis that explains a bunch of hypotheses, and has yet to run the gauntlet of scientific rigor. There is an acknowlgeable chance that it will be subject to major modification or complete rejection. This puts the term more in harmony with the vernacular.

xxxx: We used to call this a theory, but since that was too confusing and exploitable, its time to change the term. It refers to a sort of meta-explanation. Its beyond a reasonable doubt, and has run the gauntlet of scientific examination. Its not really a law, per se, because the explanation is still subject to minor modification. "The Germ XXXX of disease." "The XXXX of Relativity." "Evolutionary XXXX."

Law: This one can also stay. The law of gravity, as generally understood: Objects are attracted towards each others center of mass. Quantify it mathematically if appropriate. A law is a sort of "specific generalization" that can't realistically be called into question.

So the question then becomes, what do we call what we currently call a theory? I am wracking my brain but can't come up with the right word. Meta something? Maybe something in latin?

The Dogma of Relativity. The Dogma of Evolution.The Dogma of Karma.The Dogma of Intelligent Design.

You can see where it fits some better than others. I tend to think of Dogma as more an ideological strange attractor than a scientific explanation based on evidence and research. Color me confused by your use.

Solution is a good start. Although the term reminds me of "solved", like you would use it in math. Maybe metatheory? That would simply the textbook/website updating process.

The problem is that whatever you call it, ID will find a way to attack it.

If you call it a law, they'll talk about dogmatic atheists desperate to prop up an idea in crisis.

And if you continue to call it a scientific theory, they'll use the old 'it's just a theory!' line.

--------------Fundamentalism in a nutshell:"There are a lot of things I have concluded to be wrong, without studying them in-depth. Evolution is one of them. The fact that I don't know that much about it does not bother me in the least."

This thread seems to be ascribing a heirarchy of ways to describe scientific thoughts and conventions. The fact is that there is no concrete heirarchy and there should be none.Hypotheses are specific testable statements and generally predate theories but are not inferior to them necessarily. Examples include: The Riemann Hypothesis (mathematics) has been tested to 1.5 million prime numbers but is still called a hypothesis; Avogadro's Hypothesis (chemistry) led eventually to Avogadro's Number but it is still called a hypothesis; The One Gene-One Enzyme (or Polypeptide) Hypothesis has been postulated and holds for those genes we have studied since 1941.Theories are explanations of the general principles of phenomena with considerable evidence to support it. Examples include: The Theory of Evolution (biology), Gravity Theory (physics), Theory of Special Relativity (physics); Probability Theory (mathematics), Game Theory (economics).Laws are mathematical definitions or mathematically definable phenomena. Examples include: The Laws of Thermodynamics (1st, 2nd, 3rd); Newton's Three Laws of Motion; The Ideal Gas Law. Evolution doesn't fit because it isn't primarily describable as an equation and is not tested mathematically.Furthermore, there are PRINCIPLES. I don't know what the difference between a principle and a theory is but there are numerous examples: The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (particle physics); Bernoulli's Principle (fluid behavior); The Superposition Principle (wave physics); LeChatelier's Principle of Equilibrium (solution chemistry).

I am very dubious about ascribing a heirarchy to the various ways of describing explanations for observable phenomena. To me, they're all equal and deserve equal respect.

To put in my two cents here, I would think that either law or principle would be a concise statement about something that happens under the described circumstances. A Theory is a body of knowledge for which the main principle(s) have been confirmed by testing, i.e., a confirmed hypothesis. A hypothesis is a proposal for a new law or principle that hasn't yet been confirmed.

I'm unsure if there's a technical distinction between "law" and "principle"? Would "law" be more general while "principle" could also refer to something that applies in more limited circumstances?

Unfortunately, several of the terms do get misused. String "theory" as I understand it is still unconfirmed, so it should be called "hypothesis", but it's been called "theory" for so long now that this misuse seems very unlikely to get corrected. Not to mention that those unfamiliar with scientific usage think "theory" means hypothesis or even just a guess.

Unfortunately, given all that, if talking to people who wouldn't be sure of the status of the theory under discussion, I'd say to clarify the term, as in "theory confirmed by repeated testing" or "hypothesis that hasn't yet been confirmed", or something along one of those lines.

Re "isnt a law somthing that can be proven though? somthing you can see? "

No, in science a law is a concise statement of a basic principle of some sort. They're often in the form of equations (e.g., g = G M1 M2 / r**2), or sometimes inequalities (e.g., entropy(after) >= entropy(before)).

I don't think I did. You asked if a law could be proven. It can be tested against observation; if it's wrong enough observations ought to spot someplace where the "law" doesn't hold. For example, Newton's law of gravity is shown incorrect by the movements of planet Mercury (which moves fast enough for relativity to affect it's position to a measurable extent). If by "proof" one means "prove beyond reasonable doubt", then a scientific law might be said to be proven within the areas in which it's been tested. But that's not usually what's meant by "proof".

Closest things to a law I can think of off-hand would be (1) that complex life has recent ancestor(s) very much like itself, and (2) features not constrained by environment will vary independently of each other.

Oh. Had to go reread the parent message to see what it said. Calling a major theory a law makes no sense, IMO. A law in this context is a concise statement of some principle or other, and theory in this case includes a large body of knowledge. Calling a whole body of knowledge a "law" would not make sense.